10th Feb 2012

Intelligence operation

RECENT setbacks have clearly failed to result in any soul-searching within Pakistan’s security agencies. A series of stories confirm that they continue to operate with stunning impunity despite questions about their conduct. On Tuesday, four Jamaatud Dawa activists were taken away from police custody in Rawalpindi. Yesterday brought reports of the disappearance of a forced-marriage suspect from a police station, allegedly by military personnel who claimed the sweeper for an army unit could not be arrested without notifying the military. Police claim that an officer was temporarily picked up as well. Meanwhile, reports continue to filter in about the alarming Adiala prisoners’ case. A Peshawar hospital has said that the four who died, and others currently hospitalised, were brought for medical care in critical condition. Also, the dead bodies of Baloch activists continue to turn up in the province. The assassinations of both Saleem Shahzad and members of Balochistan MPA Mir Bakhtiar Domki’s family still remain murky, and a number of different enmities could have been behind them. But the backgrounds of these victims suggest that intelligence agencies may have been involved, and until responsibility is fixed the sceptical Pakistani public will continue to regard them as the most likely culprits.

There is more than one reason for concern here. Police stations are hardly bastions of fair play, but at least have procedures in place that govern the detention, registration and investigation of suspects. When people are whisked away by unknown personnel of intelligence agencies, everything from their locations to their crimes is wiped off the map, let alone the right to a fair trial. Second, these instances demonstrate how military and intelligence personnel are eroding the authority of the police.
By taking away suspects from police custody, or hampering police investigations, as in Mr Shahzad’s case, they are both weakening this civilian institution and strengthening public perceptions about its ineffectiveness.

It is also clear that the recent questioning of the security establishment has made no difference to its conduct. Mr Shahzad’s case created a global furore over its role. The Raymond Davis incident, Osama bin Laden’s presence in the country and the raid that killed him, and the attack on PNS Mehran all raised questions about its effectiveness, resulting in the appearance before parliament of the intelligence and military chiefs. The Supreme Court continues hearings in the case of the missing persons and has now taken up the issue of the Adiala prisoners. But no amount of bad publicity or judicial questioning has, it seems, lessened the security establishment’s attraction to the quick ‘solution’ of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relief or politics?

PITY the people of Pakistan. The government, the one the people look to in hope for some relief in their everyday lives, has been the victim of criticism and besieged by other institutions and political opponents. It is hard to imagine any government anywhere in the world being able to deliver while its very survival is so often under threat. But there’s even worse in store for the people when the government they look to in hope offers only the narrowest of self-interested ‘governance’. So it is that with a general election on the horizon, the core committee of the PPP met on Wednesday and decided to provide ‘relief’ to the people in the budget and to shake up the cabinet. The reasons are not hard to fathom. ‘Relief’ through budgetary measures is a thinly veiled reference to patronage politics while the budget shake-up will help placate allies in an unwieldy coalition. What constitutes sound and responsible policy and politics is hardly of concern.

Of course, the game of politics is such that all sides are responsible for the mess the country is in; four years of the PPP-led government can hardly be blamed for structural and systemic flaws that prevent the country and its people from fulfilling their potential. And yet, it is surely the case that the PPP has worsened the predicament for both itself and the people of Pakistan at large. Patronage politics as a tool of political survival cannot be wished away but the crudeness of it under the present government is unsettling. The focus on its base in rural Pakistan (whether through favourable agricultural pricing or social-protection schemes) and the virtual ignoring of the urban sector squeezed hard by job losses, inflation and power shortages has aggravated the economic downturn. And by recklessly adding to government borrowing without increasing revenues in any significant way, the entire population has been put at risk of an economic meltdown. If a cabinet shake-up is needed, it is to bring competent and motivated individuals in positions of power and influence. Pandering to coalition allies will only worsen the country’s predicament.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir Creek canal

COMPASSION and respect for each other’s citizens is conspicuous by its absence in the Pakistan-India relationship. This is especially true when prisoners of one country are unfortunate enough to be incarcerated across the border. Fishermen who accidentally stray into foreign waters are the worst sufferers in this regard. However, the fact that the Pakistan Navy has dug a canal in the Sir Creek area to help fishermen “avoid any violation of geographical boundaries” should be welcomed. The boundary in the region is not marked, hence it is not difficult to cross over into foreign territorial waters. And when fishermen inadvertently stray across, they are hauled off and jailed by the respective authorities.

It is a vicious cycle, for fishermen are scooped up on a regular basis. Hundreds of fishermen are said to be languishing in both countries’ jails. Certain media reports indicate that some men have been in detention for over a decade, long after completing their sentences. This is despite the fact that the superior judiciary in both Pakistan and India have stated that prisoners who have completed their sentences should be repatriated. Instead, fishermen are used as pawns, exchanged every time there is high-level diplomatic contact between the two nations. The opening of the canal should help prevent fishermen from mistakenly straying into foreign waters and suffering the odious consequences of doing so. This may be the first step towards resolving this contentious issue and should improve matters from a humanitarian angle. A workable mechanism is needed whereby fishermen are warned when approaching foreign waters. Ultimately, the sooner the Sir Creek issue is sorted out and the boundary between Pakistan and India in this region is demarcated the better it will be, especially for the poor fishermen caught up in a complex bureaucratic net.

Cost of not writing

WRITE the letter. The government has hemmed and hawed enough, it has ducked and weaved from the Supreme Court’s straightforward demand enough; now is the time for the government to reassess its stubborn position and to change it. On Monday, the prime minister will appear for the second time in a matter of weeks before the SC, this time to be charged with contempt of court for failing to implement the NRO judgment in totality. Rightly or wrongly, the government feels it has been singled out for unfair and partisan treatment by the SC and that sense of victimhood has fuelled its defiance of the court’s order to write a letter to the Swiss authorities that could lead to the reopening of old corruption cases against President Zardari. But the calculus has changed for the government in recent weeks. The question now is more straightforward: is the government willing to sacrifice its prime minister over the Swiss letter?

Until the SC again took up the NRO matter in earnest a few months ago, the government’s team handling the issue was relatively smug. By trying every political and legal tactic to stymie the court, the strategy led by former law minister Babar Awan appeared to have succeeded. The NRO matter had seemingly slid off the list of priorities and other issues appeared to occupy the judiciary and roil the political landscape. However, in that strategy of doing whatever it takes to buy more time for the government were sown the seeds of the present showdown. Angered at being defied so brazenly and egregiously, the court once again took up the matter in earnest and this time has showed no sign of standing down at the last minute. Bald defiance does not appear to be an option for the government any more.

At this point, perhaps it is time for some within the government circles to stand up and speak sense to the party leadership. Legal circles appear near unanimous in their opinion that merely writing the Swiss letter will not automatically reopen the cases against President Zardari. In fact, eminent lawyers and legal analysts have suggested that the government could write the letter and simultaneously claim immunity, both under international law and the Pakistani constitution. Within the government circles stands one man, Aitzaz Ahsan, who has both the moral authority and legal expertise to have his opinion taken with great seriousness. Between now and Monday, there is still time for someone like Mr Ahsan, and others, to speak out to avert the catastrophe of a prime minister being convicted by the SC.


IT was one of the more bizarre and unnecessary public demonstrations of US involvement in Pakistan’s affairs. Wednesday’s congressional hearing on Balochistan had suspicious motives, a vague purpose and an interfering tone, a combination that is all the more dangerous at this particular point in time and for this particular topic. Consider the context. Sensitivities about national sovereignty were already badly frayed over the Salala debacle. After much protesting by Pakistan and tortuous attempts at explanation by the US, the two were barely beginning to take tentative steps towards yet another ‘new normal’, one that may be more openly transactional than the last iteration of the relationship. At a time like this, for US lawmakers to hold a hearing on Balochistan – one of the most complex and sensitive of Pakistan’s many internal challenges – seems more deliberate provocation than genuine concern. Consider, also, the historical context. Based on a mix of fact and fiction, the US has a reputation amongst the Pakistani public for long having interfered in its internal affairs. Wednesday’s hearings will directly fuel that paranoia, with attendant consequences for state-level diplomacy.

None of this is to say that the human rights abuses being carried out in the province don’t deserve urgent and committed attention. But Pakistan is not a country where criticism of state-sponsored oppression cannot be voiced. From the Supreme Court and its judicial commission to NGOs and the media to Baloch politicians, there are plenty of individuals and institutions speaking out about the problem.

That the Pakistani state needs to do more to respond to them remains true, but the need for the American legislature to get involved remains entirely unclear. Nor is it apparent what the discussion will achieve, aside from possibly making life more difficult for supporters of the Baloch cause, who could now be conveniently branded by the establishment as US stooges. The State Department has, appropriately, distanced the US government from the hearing. But as public servants with access to such an influential platform, US lawmakers had a responsibility to think twice about the need for this action and the signals it would send.

Literature festival

A NUMBER of prominent local and foreign writers, poets, journalists and intellectuals are due to appear at the Karachi Literature Festival which begins today. In its third year, the annual event is becoming a celebrated feature on the metropolis’s limited cultural calendar. Though literary festivals are regularly held in cities across the world, due to Pakistan’s particular situation holding such events in this country is a considerable challenge. Discussions on geopolitical and social issues are planned, while films will also be screened. Musical performances are also scheduled in keeping with the festival’s broader theme of celebrating the arts.

Foreign participation, including names such as William Dalrymple, Vikram Seth and Hanif Kureishi among others, is indeed welcome, especially considering the fact that foreigners feel hesitant about visiting Pakistan due mainly to the volatile security situation. The participation of foreign guests allows Pakistanis to comprehent what the world is thinking and, perhaps more importantly, it gives the world an opportunity to listen to what Pakistanis have to say, other than the usual narrative of violence, intolerance and instability. Also, cultural events such as these are essential for a society’s evolution and growth, where different voices can be heard and issues debated. Such events can also serve as catharsis for a scarred society like ours. Most of the authors featured write in English, though a number of sessions are dedicated to Urdu literature and writing in Pakistan’s regional languages. While English has indeed become the world’s language, it is important that such festivals support writers who express themselves in Urdu and other Pakistani languages. All in all a welcome addition to the national cultural scene, it is hoped that the literature festival and other events that celebrate the arts, the intellect, learning and the human spirit become regular features in Karachi as well as other cities of Pakistan.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO

Date: 12th Feb 2012

Baloch solution

WHAT is sadder than Jalil Reki’s story is how common a tale it is. The mutilated body of this Baloch activist was found nearly three years after he disappeared, events his father has described in searing detail for a report in this paper. Meanwhile, the interior minister was holding a ‘third force’ responsible for Balochistan’s troubles in the Senate on Friday. But external powers cannot conjure up an internal problem to exploit. Holding them responsible shifts the burden away from the state’s responsibility to answer two interconnected questions that have gone unaddressed for too long. First, who actually runs Balochistan? Certainly not the elected provincial government, which owns up to its own powerlessness. If the federal government does, the extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, terrorism, crime and lack of development point to an abysmal failure of governance on its part. And if the province is, as many Baloch and others feel, controlled by the military establishment, is the government doing anything to try to wrest away some of its power? For an administration that has recently been more than willing to take on Rawalpindi when threatened by its own removal, it is remarkably silent about the erosion of civilian authority in Balochistan.

Second is the question of a solution. Aghaz-i-Huqooq-i-Balochistan has proved that a top-down approach and a few development projects and jobs will not address the fundamental issues. The government could be doing a lot more just to kick-start a process of trying to find an answer, which will hinge on listening to what the Baloch want, rethinking what the government can provide, and genuinely attempting to move towards some middle ground. That would mean a broad-based, open-minded effort to hear from them, including separatists, rather than giving them what Islamabad thinks they need. It would mean partnering with politicians from across the spectrum, including the opposition, who might have relationships with Baloch leaders. And it would require a genuine effort, including pressuring the security establishment, to meet some of the key demands for justice and security.

But none of this will happen as long as politicians continue to suffer from the Bangladesh syndrome: believing that the concerns of certain Pakistanis are less important than those of others. The Awami League’s demands were unacceptable to West Pakistan’s political establishment at the time. In hindsight, after losing East Pakistan, they are no longer seen that way. The federal government needs to get its act together on the issue before we reach a point when, looking back, we wish we hadn’t been so dismissive of Balochistan’s demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SBP autonomy

THE passage of a direction-setting law, the State Bank of Pakistan Amendment Bill 2011, by the National Assembly on Wednesday went almost unnoticed in the hullabaloo generated by the proposed 20th Amendment and the contempt case being heard by the Supreme Court against the prime minister. The changes in the law governing the functioning of the key regulator of the country’s financial sector are significant because they seek to enhance the bank’s independence. The bill imposes restrictions on the government’s borrowing from the SBP and makes it mandatory for it to retire the loans obtained from the bank, except for its overdraft, at the end of each quarter. It further gives the existing Monetary Policy Committee a statutory role to help the bank discharge its primary tasks, particularly the formulation of monetary policy and determination of the limits and nature of loans to the government, more freely. The government now has eight years to pay off the debt it owed to the bank at the end of April last year. In case the government fails to implement any provision it will have to justify the reasons for it before parliament. That will hold the government accountable to the elected public representatives, though only to a certain extent, for breaching the bank’s autonomy.
Hopefully, no government would want to be embarrassed publicly for its failures on this count.

The original draft of the bill was diluted on the Senate’s recommendations, which has certainly irked many. There have been calls for ensuring greater autonomy for central banks the world over to free them from political pressures and to facilitate them in their functions of ensuring price and financial stability. But no matter how independent a central bank is, it has to work under certain constraints imposed by a government’s political and development needs at the end of the day. Reform in small doses is the formula for countries like Pakistan that are not always prepared for change. Diluted the bill may be but its passage sets the tone the bank must adopt as it circumspectly pushes the boundaries for greater freedom in future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protest culture

TRAFFIC jams ‘on their own’ are bad enough, and the long wait during rush hour is unendurable anywhere. However, what happened in Karachi on Friday was symptomatic of a national phenomenon, because protest rallies — often for justifiable causes — are organised in such a way that they bring misery to millions by throwing traffic upside down. This stems basically from a callous disregard for fellow citizens’ rights. The exercise of rights guaranteed by the constitution doesn’t authorise one citizen to impinge on the rights of another. All citizens and groups have an inalienable right to ventilate their grievances through parliament and the media and hold rallies to protest against a given act of injustice. The law also requires that the organisers of marches and protests obtain the administration’s permission. But this is only in theory: one wonders whether the protesters actually bother to obtain permission. This is just one aspect; the other is the denial of right of movement to fellow citizens when processions crawl through crowded streets and thoroughfares. This blocks traffic movement not only on the path of
the procession but in other areas as well because of its spill-over effect. School vans caught in traffic jams that may
last hours give anxious moments to parents.

All processions are not political; many are organised by labour and student unions, rights groups and religious organisations. That they should cause agony to millions of commuters while advancing an otherwise just cause is a reflection on society’s sense of values and proportions. In summer especially, the agony of hundreds of thousands of citizens trapped in traffic jams created by those who should have had the decency to air their dissent in a civilised way can only be imagined. In other parts of the world protesters march on sidewalks. Why can’t ours?

-----------------------------------------

__________________
Real richness is that you are so expensive that no one can buy your character.

salam
good work done by all seniors.

__________________
Recite a Darood Shareef on Our Beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him at least once and now.

THE complexity that is Pakistan was on full display over the weekend in Karachi. Yesterday, the Difaa-i-Pakistan Council held another sizeable rally, this time at a stone’s throw from Jinnah’s mausoleum. Speaker after speaker called for the reinvention of Pakistan in line with a muscular, reactionary and religion-driven nationalism. The Pakistan envisioned by the DPC would be out of step with the modern world, harkening back to a mystical past whose recreation in present-day Pakistan would apparently be the solution to all that ails the country today. A narrative of hate, intolerance and xenophobia dressed up as ‘independent’ foreign and national-security policies is what was on offer at the DPC rally. There was some irony in the location chosen, for the backdrop of the Quaid’s mausoleum made for a jarring reminder of how far Pakistan has drifted from the vision of its founder. Indeed, if there was something Mr Jinnah would have been proud of this weekend in Karachi, it would be the Karachi Literature Festival. There, writers and intellectuals came together to promote values alien to the DPC supporters: pluralism, tolerance, diversity, a love for the arts and culture, and free thought and expression.

So which is the ‘real’ Pakistan, the one on display at the DPC rally or at the literature festival? Both are, but there is also a crucial difference: the mindset espoused by the DPC appears to be in the ascendant, while that on display at the literature festival is on the decline, or at the very least on the defensive. Perhaps that is the greatest dilemma facing Pakistan, that while there still exist many different versions of Pakistan, a more intolerant vision is being pumped more aggressively, and more successfully, into the body politic and society at large. If there is a silver lining, it is that most Pakistanis still appear to reject the more extreme and hateful ideologies. DPC, for all its success, still appears to be very much on the fringes of Pakistani politics. Still, a well-organised movement with formidable resources and a willingness to intimidate can distort the political field, making it more difficult for reasonable voices to promote reasonable policies and choices.

Could the more moderate mindset on display at the KLF be transmitted through wider swathes of Pakistan? The KLF itself is obviously first and foremost a literary event and not a political vehicle and because it caters mostly to an English-speaking audience, its outreach is limited. But the wider problem for moderate thoughts and ideas is that it has few champions in the public domain anymore. Those that do try to speak up — Salmaan Taseer comes instantly to mind — are brutally cut down and other politicians and state officials with similar thoughts have been successfully cowed into keeping their ideas private. Still, Pakistan remains a complex society and moderate forces on the defensive could bounce back. Perhaps nothing works like the marketplace of ideas and allowing the merits and demerits of competing idelogies to be established in the public domain. If the DPC is retrogressive and the KLF ‘too progressive’ for some circles, the very fact that the public has a choice is indicative of a society in danger, but not yet necessarily doomed.


THE government, especially the Ministry of Finance, must have heaved a sigh of relief to learn that many top names in the world’s telecom industry are interested in obtaining the third- and fourth-generation licences it plans to auction towards the end of the coming month. The Pakistan Telecom Authority’s market intelligence shows that at least one company each from the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Qatar and Afghanistan is planning to bid for the licences to enter the country’s telecom market. Apart from these, five companies already operating in Pakistan also intend to compete for the next-generation licences. Some of them will go it alone. Others faced with financial problems are looking for partners to make joint bids. Just how many will actually participate in the auction is not clear at the moment, but the more there are, the merrier it will be for a cash-strapped government that is desperately looking for ways to raise foreign revenues.

The government, which plans to generate around $800m from the sale, has a lot at stake. It will be difficult for it to keep down its budget deficit for the current fiscal to manageable levels unless it is able to raise the projected funds from the auction. Even a delay in the auction could jeopardise the efforts to sell the licences at a good price and control the deficit, which is projected to balloon to over six per cent. So difficult are the economic circumstances that the advisory committee on the auction is said to be looking into the possibility of bypassing the procurement rules to complete the process within the stipulated time. It has already referred the matter to the law ministry for advice. Bypassing the rules does not appear to be the right approach. In the given political situation, it would be advisable for the government not to disregard these even if it is within its right to do so. It could delay the auction for a longer time if the matter is taken to the courts.


ALTHOUGH it has been a while since we separated, Pakistanis cannot help but peep into Indian territory to find out what is cooking there. India’s treatment of minorities is a topic close to our hearts. But it provides us with so much else that we consider beneath our dignity or beyond our call to produce ourselves —– films, television soaps, rags-to-riches stories, etc. Every now and then it also offers us an opportunity for free and meaningful discussion on a subject we are still too shy to locate in our own situation. Routinely, what we see there leads to comparisons with our own little broth here. It is almost natural then for the episode involving the executive, the army chief and the judiciary in India to have been closely followed this side of the Wagah.

It was intriguing to find a serving army chief going all the way to the court when all he wanted was a one-year extension of his tenure. The issue at the base of the affair was itself no less mystifying, given the subcontinental habit of forgetting birthdays. Gen V.K. Singh contested the papers had wrongly recorded his date of birth as May 10, 1950, claiming this amounted to pushing back the auspicious occasion by a year. He believed he was born on May 10, 1951 and therefore would attain the age of retirement (62 under Indian law), not in May 2012 but in May 2013. The court ruled that Gen Singh’s words and the facts were not the same thing.
It agreed with the executive, and the army chief saw sense in withdrawing his plea — the graceful acceptance of reality still appeared to be the preferred way. The executive has welcomed the gesture. This should ensure 60-odd birthday bumps for the general on his big day.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO

February 14, 2012


IT was inevitable, given the way both sides had been digging in their heels. A sitting prime minister has been charged with contempt of court, effectively pitting the people’s court against the judiciary. Each has clearly been trying to avoid the perception that it is targeting the other, with the Supreme Court allowing more time between hearings than expected — including the two weeks it has now granted, which should also suppress rumours about attempts to delay Senate elections — and the PM and his counsel making the right noises about respecting the judiciary and the rule of law. But this relative civility could not have averted the impasse they have reached by sticking to their guns. With political considerations appearing to trump legal reasoning, the government has clearly made up its mind to ignore the argument, made by many in the legal community, that it can maintain its position on the president’s immunity and still write the letter, which would not necessarily lead to the reopening of cases against him. In the other corner is an apex court determined to assert its authority.
Why it is set on doing so at this particular time, after two years of the NRO case lying dormant, is unclear. What is apparent is that the SC is no longer willing to suffer defiance on this issue, even if that means convicting a head of government.

What next? If either party backs down after such dogged resistance it will risk the perception that it pointlessly dragged the country through another political drama. But given the upheaval that could result from the PM’s conviction, that risk is worth it. It will be difficult for the SC to call into question its December 2009 NRO judgment by letting the PM off the hook. But in view of the timing and sensitivities, it could consider a lengthy adjournment, something it could also have done before this point was reached. And the government can still write the letter and put the issue to bed, at least for the time being.

Either option could create the opportunity for a smoother transition to early or on-schedule general elections, allowing an elected government to complete a full term, or seek a new mandate, with its chief executive intact. The conviction of a sitting PM is not a simple matter of appointing a new one. It will weaken democratic institutions in a country where these finally have the chance to demonstrate staying power. And it would be a shame to lose that opportunity over a letter that at the end of the day might not mean very much at all.


THE decision to open up the country’s transport infrastructure and services to private competition under an integrated National Transport Policy is a step in the right direction. A document that envisages policies and a framework to guide the planning, implementation, operations and monitoring of the transport system has been finalised. It will now be presented before the cabinet for approval before the country’s rail tracks, road, air, shipping, ports, airports and waterways are opened up for private investment in infrastructure and services. The policy indirectly recognises that the government does not have enough financial resources or managerial skills to provide decent, reliable and quick transport and cargo services to the people. In fact, the government’s insistence on maintaining its monopoly in certain areas of the business like in rail, air and urban transport has discouraged investment by the organised private sector in the past as well as deprived people of efficient and dependable ways of travel.

Private investment in the transport sector — especially in urban, inter-city and freight transport — has so far come from the unorganised sector. Hence, the urgent need for a proper policy to encourage the organised sector to invest in this area of the economy. The participation of the private sector in the country’s rundown transport network must bridge the resource gap, modernise the facilities and help the government eliminate untargeted subsidies, thus reducing the huge financial burden on the budget. More importantly, private investors will bring efficiency in both the passenger and cargo sectors. The recent launch of the Pak Business Express train running between Lahore and Karachi is an example of how the involvement of businessmen, in spite of teething problems, can improve conditions for passengers who are ready to pay a higher price for a reliable facility. The opening up of the transport sector to private competition will not mean that the government should abdicate all responsibility.
For one, the private sector is unlikely to have complete monopoly. For another, the government will have to put together a comprehensive, strict regulatory mechanism to protect the rights of users without undermining the investors’ ability to earn decent returns on their investments.


PURSUING a nuclear programme is one thing; flaunting it the wrong way, especially when Iran’s uranium processing is being viewed with suspicion in the West, quite another. Addressing a public rally to mark the 33rd anniversary of his country’s Islamic revolution on Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would soon announce the advances made by Iran in its nuclear programme. The rally chanted anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and waved flags as the president spoke of Iran’s “major nuclear achievements”. Among the guests was Ismail Haniye, the Hamas leader, who heads the Gaza administration independent of the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas. One reason for the president’s nuclear rhetoric could be to woo voters for the parliamentary elections next month. They will be a crucial test for his popularity, because the March election is the first voting exercise after the 2009 presidential contest in which Mr Ahmadinejad defeated Mir-Hossein Mousavi, triggering months of protests by the reformists, who alleged that the polls were rigged. The anniversary and the speech also came in the midst of rising tensions with the West.

Recently, America and the European Union put Iran under a fresh layer of sanctions. While the sanctions do bite, Iran has managed to keep the economy going. Israel, meanwhile, has not helped matters by threatening armed action “this spring”. Given the Iranian regime’s ideological commitment, it has vowed to retaliate. While an attack on Iran by Israel and/or America will be a mistake of monstrous proportions, the clergy-led Ahmadinejad regime should also realise that a high-profile confrontation with the West is not in Iran’s interest, its right to nuclear energy notwithstanding. Mr Haniye’s presence at the rally could be misunderstood and lend credence to western apprehensions about the use Iran’s nuclear power could be put to.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO

India-Pakistan trade

INDIA and Pakistan have made considerable progress towards normalising trade relations since the resumption of commerce secretary-level talks in April last year, which had been suspended after the 2008 Mumbai bombings. India has agreed to dismantle all Pakistan-specific non-tariff barriers. Pakistan is switching over to a small negative list of non-tradable items and is discarding the positive list that allows trade in less than 2,000 items. It
has approved MFN status for India, which will be implemented once New Delhi tears down the non-tariff barriers restricting imports from Pakistan. A new gate at the Wagah-Attari border will be opened for trade traffic by the end of April. Both countries are set to sign three agreements today to ease restrictions on trade.

This progress was underscored when, in September last year, Makhdoom Amin Fahim became the first Pakistani commerce minister to visit India in 35 years to finalise a road map and timeline for liberalising bilateral trade. Both countries are committed to more than doubling their direct trade to $6bn in three years. The visit of Anand Sharma, India’s first commerce minister to tour Pakistan in 64 years, is expected to quicken the process. That 120 top Indian businessmen are accompanying Mr Sharma for meetings with their Pakistani counterparts shows a common resolve to overcome obstacles, despite the fuss being created by a small minority that is against a thaw in India-Pakistan ties. In fact, the progress so far would not have been possible had the majority of businessmen on both sides not supported the process.

The talks also indicate the growing strength of those who want peace between India and Pakistan for an economically prosperous and thriving South Asia. There is increasing realisation in Pakistan, as there is in India, that the region
cannot make full use of its economic potential unless peace is given a chance. And what could be a better of resolving political and territorial disputes than normalising bilateral trade? After all, a convergence of economic interests does make it easier to negotiate and agree upon solutions to other issues. Both Mr Amin and Mr Sharma have voiced similar views since they met last year. Both have displayed a strong commitment to bringing down the barriers to trade through sustained dialogue and actions.
Still, while Pakistan and India have covered a long way in the last one year, the road to an economically prosperous and politically peaceful South Asia is not without difficulties. The journey can be cut shorter if, in the words of Mr Sharma, Pakistan and India decide to hold hands.

Adiala prisoners

CRITICISM of enforced disappearances usually points to the latter’s illegality and to the impunity with which intelligence agencies operate outside the bounds of the law in Pakistan. Monday’s appearance in the Supreme Court of the missing Adiala prisoners was a reminder of the human aspect of this story, providing the media with direct access to the sadness and horror of the lives of Pakistan’s missing people. As such it was a rare public manifestation of the lack of humanity of this opaque system in which perceived troublemakers are picked up and held without trial. The seven survivors of the group of 11 men who were rounded up by intelligence agencies from Adiala Jail in May 2010 after being acquitted were frail, ill and distraught when presented in the SC on Monday. They could barely walk or talk. They met family members who hadn’t seen them in years, some since their first disappearances in 2007 and 2008. Various media reports mentioned serious illnesses, no access to sunlight, poor nutrition, solitary confinement and extremely high temperatures. Hospital staff in Peshawar had earlier already revealed that these men, and the four who died, were in critical shape when brought in for medical care.

The event brought to mind the bullet-ridden, tortured and mangled bodies of missing Baloch activists that now routinely show up in the province. But those images do not appear in the mainstream media, and with the exception of the occasional report about a specific Baloch family and their ordeal, it is easy to reduce the stories of missing people and their relatives to statistics. The sight in the SC on Monday was a reminder of the horror of a parallel system of justice that normally operates without questions being asked. The SC’s insistence that the prisoners be produced in court, despite resistance from Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence, was important for questioning the brazenness with which these organisations bypass the justice system to abduct people of their choosing. But it was equally important for highlighting the human tragedy of enforced disappearances.

Education crisis

PAKISTAN seems to invest its limited resources in pursuits of all sorts other than those aimed at educating the next generation. This is so in spite of the fact that free education is now every child’s constitutional right. The Annual Status of Education Report, launched in various cities in the country, seems to confirm these grim realities, as have similar reports in the recent past. The wide-ranging report, which covers both rural and urban households, says that of the children surveyed in the three-to-five age bracket over 57 per cent did not attend school. Gender disparity is also a reality, as the number of girls in school is considerably less than that of boys, while children’s reading skills come across as woefully inadequate. We are truly facing an ‘education emergency’ but our government officials do not seem to care.

Policy interventions take time to manifest themselves in terms of tangible results. But from the looks of it, these interventions are not being made, at least not properly. There is no chance that Pakistan will reach the Millennium Development Goal for education by 2015. But that does not mean that all efforts for education reform should be abandoned. Rather, such indicators should serve as an impetus for the state to redouble its efforts to reverse the slide. For one, there is a critical link between educated mothers and educated children. It has been observed that educated women have healthier and better-educated offspring. As per ASER’s findings, over 65 per cent of the mothers surveyed were illiterate. While the priority should be educating children, perhaps the situation can also be turned around by supporting adult literacy campaigns focusing on mothers. Another recurring issue bringing education down is political interference, especially in the hiring of teachers. This must end while there needs to be better oversight of school managements.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO

Democracy wins

PARLIAMENT has once again managed to defy its critics and produce a consensus on the 20th Amendment. What’s particularly satisfying about the bill is that what began as a narrow, technical purpose — the demand by the Supreme Court that a one-time constitutional cover be granted to legislators elected while the Election Commission of Pakistan was not yet properly constituted as stipulated in the 18th Amendment — ended up as a broader attempt to try and ensure a more impartial interim set-up before the next general elections and to enhance the autonomy of the ECP itself. Remember, to date the dominant theory was that the PPP was hoping to use the interim set-up to its advantage while the PML-N was considered to have slipped into campaign mode, which would dictate not being seen to cooperate with the government ahead of the next election.
Moreover, the incentives for an agreement between the PPP and the PML-N weren’t terribly high: the PPP-led coalition argued it had a two-thirds majority in parliament, mean-ing that a consensus amendment was more of a political signal than a numerical necessity.

In its own way, the 20th Amendment has added to the body of evidence suggesting that democracy can and does work in Pakistan, if it is given the space to do so. For the PPP to surrender what appeared to be a constitutional prerogative to pick an interim prime minister of its choice — before the amendment, the president, the PPP co-chairman, was required to consult the prime minister, a PPP man, and the leader of the opposition, a PML-N figure, giving it a 2-1 edge in the decision-making apparatus — is a concession where none needed to be given. True, the turnout in the Assembly on Tuesday night suggested the PPP and its coalition allies would have had their work cut out for them to ensure the attendance of enough members to pass the amendment without the PML-N’s help but in the bare-knuckle world of power politics here, it was a pleasant reaffirmation of the fact that this parliament has what it takes to get serious legislation done.

Being in the opposition, perhaps the PML-N deserves slightly more credit for its ultimate cooperation. In fact, it is fairly clear that the longevity of parliament itself this time round has much to do with the PML-N eschewing the role of a rabid opposition determined to bring down a government through any means. From support for the NFC, in which Punjab took a hit, to major changes to the constitution, the PML-N has more often than not supported the democratic project. Democracy lives, and it can deliver.

Overseas voters

THE Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to allow 3.7 million overseas Pakistanis — expatriates possessing national identity cards for overseas Pakistanis — the right to vote is a welcome move. The opinion of Pakistanis living abroad matters: they send billions of dollars home in remittances, and can also lobby positively for Pakistan in foreign capitals. As reported in this paper, the ECP is considering setting up polling stations in Pakistani missions in countries which have significant expatriate populations, as well as allowing postal ballots. Interestingly, those who hold dual nationality will have to give up their foreign citizenship if they wish to vote for candidates in this country. This will not be an issue for expats in the Gulf where citizenship is rarely granted to foreigners. But it is unfair that dual citizens elsewhere, who hold a Pakistani passport, should not be allowed to vote. This condition should be withdrawn.

While it is a good decision in principle, if the government intends to allow overseas Pakistanis to vote in the next election — whether this year or in 2013 as per schedule — there is a tough task ahead and the ECP needs to move fast. Firstly, the
relevant laws must be framed. Second, a relatively simple and transparent process needs to be put in place. There are many questions that need answers, the foremost of which is regarding the constituencies. There are hundreds of provincial and National Assembly seats up for grabs — what will determine which seats overseas Pakistanis can vote for? For example, will an overseas voter be eligible to cast a ballot for the last constituency he resided in when he was in Pakistan? Then there is the method of voting.
Some have suggested allowing postal ballots with foreign Pakistani missions verifying voters. Transparency is another major issue, as even a few hundred votes can be critical in tight races. The process then must filter out bogus votes. Perhaps it would be beneficial to study how other democracies allow their overseas citizens to vote. Care must be taken to create a foolproof mechanism, as a hastily completed process may end up creating fresh controversy.


ONE year on, the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti has developed into a murky, unresolved case involving unclear motives, suspicious leads, lack of coordination across law-enforcement organisations and, possibly, attempts to hush up the truth. Officially, the police claim that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan was behind the murder. Rehman Malik and his interior ministry say militant group Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan is responsible. And unofficially, police sources will tell you that the murder was the result of business dealings — possibly illegal in nature — gone wrong. Just as unclear as the motive is the shady process that has led to the arrest of one suspect in Lahore on Tuesday and another in Dubai last month. The two were originally named by a man who has admitted in court that he concocted the story in the hopes of earning a monetary reward from
Mr Bhatti’s family, and yet police have gone ahead with these arrests. And aside from their contra-dictory claims as to the motive, the interior ministry and the police seem to be fighting a turf war over the case; against procedure, the latter was bypassed by the former in dealings with Interpol and Dubai law enforcement that led to the arrest in the UAE.

The murder of the former minorities’ affairs minister is no ordinary case. He represented minorities in the highest forums of government, was a pro-minent member of a minority religious community himself and had spoken against the blasphemy laws.

There is some indication that officials are hesitating to publicise their actual assessments of the case. But given its high-profile nature, it is important that they share the truth. At the very least, if extremists were not behind the murder, that will provide some comfort that Mr Bhatti was not killed for his religious beliefs or his stance against the blasphemy laws.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO

APC on Balochistan

HERE we go again. Another ‘all-party conference’ on Balochistan has been mooted, this time by the prime minister, who on Wednesday suggested that the APC would be held “as soon as possible”, this after a meeting with the foreign minister, COAS and ISI chief to discuss the security situation. Last month, it was Nawaz Sharif who pledged to convene an APC of his own, and the government had immediately suggested it was willing to participate. Will the two APCs now be merged? It doesn’t really matter, for as long as the enormous gap between the rhetoric of politicians and the realities of Balochistan remains, the politicians are unlikely to lead the way to a solution in the violence-torn province. What are those realities? They’re fairly well known by now. Violence by both sides is up. The so-called ‘kill and dump’ policy of extrajudicial executions has claimed nearly 300 lives so far. Meanwhile, the Baloch separatists continue their campaign of violence, targeting both security installations and personnel as well as ordinary non-Baloch residents of the province.

In fact, a troubling new development is the targeting of Pakhtuns, in this case seven newly arrived labourers in southwest Balochistan, presumably by Baloch separatists. Until now, it had been the Punjabi ‘settlers’ who had been the subject of violence. Their killing was seen as a way of protesting Punjab’s ‘domination’ of the federation, and the Baloch in particular.
Unfortunately for the Punjabi settlers, they were relatively soft targets. But the killing of Pakhtun labourers could have serious consequences for Balochistan given the significant Pakhtun population in the province and the long-standing demand of some Pakhtun leaders that the northern parts of the province, even Quetta city, be merged with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Whether the Baloch separatists have opened a new front in the province out of desperation or as a way of drawing fresh attention to their cause, the implications are terrifying. Baloch and Pakhtun leaders must reassert the importance of peaceful coexistence.

As for the APC, in theory it is a good idea but in practice will only work if the politicians are serious about bringing the warring sides, the Baloch separatists and the security establishment, to the table. A recent background briefing on Balochistan by senior security officials reflected how difficult that task is: the blame was almost wholly cast on politicians for putting self-interest ahead of the needs of the province. Of course, that perspective is questionable, if not problematic: as long as bribes and bullets are the preferred instruments of the security establishment for dealing with Balochistan, the province will never truly escape its unhappy past and present.

Growing malnutrition

IS the purpose of a government to perpetuate a deplorable system, or address the issues of the people? In Pakistan, it would appear to be the former. Those in positions of influence in Islamabad and at the top tiers of society play a long-term game in which various elements engage in efforts to out-manoeuvre each other. Meanwhile, the electorate continues to be mired in ever-worsening poverty. A Save the Children report launched in Islamabad on Wednesday found that 38 per cent of surveyed families had been forced to cut down on food intake while 58 per cent were food insecure; one in five parents said that their child did not get enough food. While Pakistan does not yet have the highest rate of stunting among children due to malnutrition — that dubious honour goes to India — the stunting rate in the country has gone up by almost 50 per cent over the past decade. Over the next 15 years, Pakistan will have the highest percentage of stunted children.

This is not the first report that presents such an appalling picture. Last month, the National Nutritional Survey presented similar findings on malnutrition. In 2011, a World Bank report said the poorest households were spending up to 70 per cent, or more, of their income on food alone. And nutrition is hardly the only sector showing such pitiful statistics. Every indicator of welfare has taken a sharp downward turn. Consider the spiralling rates of unemployment and illiteracy, for example. It is not that efforts have not been made to counter the situation, but that almost all initiatives are piecemeal and linked to specific governments or personalities. Clearly, policymaking in development does not figure highly on the state’s agenda, regardless of the government in power. Few policies can be expected to survive a change at the helm. It is not surprising then that the poor continue to become poorer with little access to even the most basic of human rights. With elections round the corner, the political elite as a whole may wish to dwell on this situation.

Needless diatribe

IMRAN Khan would be well advised to weigh his words before he utters them if he wants to be seen as a politician with clear, intelligent views. As chief of a party which has injected a new sense of optimism among many people countrywide, Mr Khan is justifiably anxious about the fairness of the next general elections. On Tuesday, the National Assembly passed the 20th Amendment bill, after evolving a consensus on the formation of a caretaker government to conduct the elections. It is quite possible that the PTI chief, like many others, has reservations about some aspects of the amendment. But at his Lahore press conference, Mr Khan did not go into the details, nor was he specific about the points he disagreed with. Instead, he rejected the entire 20th Amendment, without telling his interlocutors what precisely was wrong with it and what changes, if any, he wanted.

So far, caretaker governments have been run by nominated prime ministers. To remove this aberration, the PPP and PML-N did a commendable job by coming together and devising a formula acceptable to both the government and the opposition. This parliamentary consensus deserves to be welcomed. More importantly, the 20th Amendment has sent a clear message to those keen on discrediting democracy. Against this background the views aired by Mr Khan on Wednesday are unlikely to boost his own credentials as a politician. He should realise that a strong anti-corruption plank does not give him carte blanche to reject even that which is the result of a legitimate constitutional process. His talk of a civil war in a country that already saw one in 1971 and which led to its break-up is most unfortunate. In fact, the recent parliamentary process was one that strengthens the Election Commission, and in this context, his remarks were uncalled for.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO

A dangerous mindset

GIVEN the scale of radicalisation across Pakistan, it is clear that methods other than military strategy must be brought into play to quell it. The Pakistan Army set up de-radicalisation centres to provide interventions to those deemed ‘radicals’ – mainly persons detained in conflict zones. But, as editorialised by this newspaper last month, there are a number of points of concern, including the fact that the public has no idea about the details of the programmes. What do they entail, what process is followed or expertise offered – and how are ‘radicals’ delineated from ordinary citizens? For example, has it been conclusively proved that those in de-radicalisation centres were involved in militant or extremist activities? Now, it has come to light that the programmes have not been working. On Thursday, an official of the Pakistan Army’s judge advocate general branch told the Peshawar High Court that despite having been through the de-radicalisation process, several militants from Swat had rejoined militant groups.

Radicalisation is an ideological state of mind, and not something empirical of which a person can reliably be said to have been cleansed. No doubt there are people who were absorbed by militant outfits involuntarily and would welcome rehabilitation. But militancy in Pakistan is linked to a peculiar set of ideologies that have a lasting hold on the minds of its subscribers. For militants who have vowed to fight the very nature of the state and federation, a de-radicalisation programme may be the softer option whilst in detention.

For Pakistan to control radicalisation, it must counter the growing extremism evident in society as a whole. This is emerging as a greater threat to the country than terrorism, as was pointed out at the launch of a related report in Islamabad on Thursday. Extremism cannot be eliminated by the gun; the task requires methods of long-term persuasion and extensive societal change. Concurrently, the state must face up to the fact that it has for decades followed a duplicitous policy towards militancy. Cosmetic measures, such as banning certain outfits but allowing them to operate under other names, were bound to prove insufficient. The ideological underpinnings of militancy in Pakistan, which were endorsed by elements within the state during the ’80s and after, have never been honestly or fully rejected. That mindset has not just become more entrenched, it is fast gaining new subscribers. If Pakistan is to be saved, this mindset must change. That requires formulating a definitive state policy on the factors that pro- vide militancy with its moorings.

Karzai and Taliban

ALL the familiar noises are emerging from the Pak-Afghan talks in Islamabad. President Karzai termed Afghanistan and Pakistan “twin brothers” who should be working together towards stability in both countries. Pakistan reiterated its support for a stable Afghanistan and an “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned” peace process. But the reality also remained the same: Kabul still perceives Pakistan as doing little to truly enable the Afghans to engage with the Taliban leadership, much of which is based here. Mr Karzai’s recent claims of being in dialogue with the Taliban seem more designed for public perception than based in reality, and his request for Pakistani help indicate a desperate attempt to open up his own links with the group outside of, or at least in addition to, the Qatar process being run by the Americans. Demanding Pakistani involvement is not a popular step for him at home, and Mr Karzai likely took it out of an acceptance of Pakistan’s links and frustration at his own failure to strengthen his government in Afghanistan. But Islamabad offered the usual statements in response, refraining from making any commitments to deliver the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table.

Even from the point of view of self-interest, this is a lost opportunity. Because the relationship with the US is so broken, Pakistan remains shut out of the Qatar process and boycotted the Bonn conference. In Mr Karzai’s desperation for help setting up dialogue with the Taliban, it has an opportunity to weaken the international perception that it is an impediment to peace, and establish its involvement in a peace process whose outcome will have direct implications for the country. One undesirable consequence of Pakistan’s reluctance to cooperate became obvious this week; Mr Karzai also sought the help of Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam leaders with Taliban links, in effect making a statement, perhaps to apply pressure on the Pakistani establishment, that he now has to seek out other partners who can deliver the goods. In the Afghan president’s needs and efforts lies an opportunity for Pakistan – if it can rethink its old policy of jealously guarding its relationship with the Taliban.

‘

Liberal’ visa regime

ALL those who desire peace in the subcontinent, especially divided families, will no doubt welcome the comments made by Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma in Islamabad on Thursday. The Indian official said that a ‘liberal’ visa policy between Pakistan and India was in its final stages and the modalities were being worked out. He added that the new policy would be “for all people”, though businessmen would get “special consideration”. It would be a relief for many visitors from Pakistan to know that the requirement of reporting to the police when entering and exiting cities would be scrapped, as would the limit on the number of cities they could visit. At the moment, for Pakistanis wanting to visit India, the current process is incredibly Byzantine. Hence a reset of this excessively bureaucratic approach can only be a good thing.

Mr Sharma said that India expected “a reciprocal gesture from Pakistan”. Doubtless, visa liberalisation is a two-way affair and the Pakistani government should take matching steps. Perhaps the biggest confidence-booster in this regard for the two sides would be to reopen long-closed consulates in Mumbai and Karachi. If this is not immediately possible, visa-processing centres should be made operative in both metropolises to facilitate the public. Also, a new visa policy should benefit the masses, not just businessmen and the elite. Currently, only PIA flies to India from Pakistan. When more visas are issued, Indian carriers should resume their services. Perhaps in the future alternative travel links between the two countries could also be established to provide a cheaper option to travellers who cannot afford high airfares. Security is important, but the current strictures are only hurting the common people, as terrorists don’t need visas. The situation can be turned around by both governments.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO